Comment regarding other clinical negligence claims

Abstract

The defendant’s primary case was that the claimant relied upon witnessing the consequence of the negligence, not the negligence itself. The material negligent event(s) were the antenatal appointments up to and including the appointment on 10 March. Either Mr Wild had not been present at those events or those events had not been sufficiently shocking so as to give rise to any psychiatric injury. A number of other lines of defence were raised, for example that Mr Wild’s psychiatric injury was caused by the realisation of baby Matthew’s death, not as a result of witnessing his death in utero with his own senses.